Movie Musings - Extraction - Is That Rake at the End?

       I watched the Netflix exclusive Extraction a while back. It’s a decent action flick set in Bangladesh where Chris Hemsworth stars as a mercenary attempting to rescue a kidnapped kid and escort him to safety. Now the main point I want to talk about is a spoiler for the ending of the movie, so if you haven’t seen it yet or don’t want any plot points spoiled you have been warned!

      So aside from the visceral action set pieces (one particular standout sequence goes on for an impressive 11 minutes with the appearance of single take) – the other thing that got people talking was to do with whether or not we see Hemsworth’s character Rake appear in the final shot of the movie. You see, Rake dies in the final action sequence – he suffers various gunshot injuries, falls off a bridge into a river and doesn’t resurface.

      In the final scene of the film we see the rescued kid Ovi jump into a pool and hold his breath whilst sinking to the bottom calmly, just like Rake did in his introductory scene. As he resurfaces we see an out of focus figure that kind of looks like Rake in the background by the side of the pool before we cut to black and the credits roll.

      So we have two options. One: yes it was Rake – he somehow miraculously survived his injuries and is there in person, either to come say hi or to just linger in the background to protect Ovi from afar. Or two: his appearance is just a metaphorical suggestion that the ‘spirit’ of Rake is watching over Ovi. Some have argued he indeed could have survived the fall in to the river as his introductory scene shows he was trained in holding his breath for a long period of time. His survival is a bit of a stretch considering the extent of the injuries he suffered. If I recall correctly he took a sniper bullet and was then shot in the neck with a pistol, not to mention the myriad of other injuries he suffered throughout the film up until that point. To then spend an inordinate amount of time underwater in a dirty river is stretching credibility somewhat. But hey, this is the movies and anything can happen, right?

      Discounting the fact that the out of focus figure could just be another random person (which would be nonsensical), the other option is suggestion two: that Rake's appearance is just a vision. It would make sense for the following reasons: Rake’s ‘appearance’ comes at a time when Ovi is reflecting on events, whilst he is mirroring Rake’s earlier actions in his introductory scene of diving into the water and holding his breath. This makes sense thematically as well, as it implies he has learnt something from Rake’s sacrifice as well as providing a nice bookend of scenes to the film. It could be suggested that this literal diving technique was also taught to him (at some point in the film that we don’t see), but that’s unnecessary.  In a previous conversation with Rake, Ovi (rather surprisingly for a twelve year old) waxes philosophically about: “You drown not by falling into the river, but by staying submerged in it”. However at the end of the film he now knows that this is not the case. You can stay submerged (for a while at least) by learning to be calm and holding your breath, shown here literally with Ovi carrying out this action in the pool but also implied of him as a character following the survival of his ordeal and his subsequent new outlook on life. The spirit of Rake appearing at this point to show that he is 'watching over him' would therefore have a thematic resonance with that.

 

     Therefore to me the second scenario makes more sense and is narratively more satisfying. The suggestion that he could have survived by ‘holding his breath’ isn’t convincing to me as I don't think that Rake is presented as training that particular technique when we see him dive into the water at the beginning of the film. He thinks about his dead son whilst he is submerged, memories of which appear fragmented and out of focus, and I take this submerging action to be something he does to drown out the world around him or at least used as some kind of masochistic flirting-with-death type of behaviour due to how feels he has nothing to lose in life anymore at that point, hence why he also spends his days as a merc with no attachments taking on dangerous jobs.

      And that’s the other thing about Rake dying at the end: in his final moments he once again has flashbacks of his son, but this time they are more in focus. The picture of his son is shown clearly – he is closer to him now. It’s a bittersweet moment as although he knows he is dying he is also happy because he knows he has done something worthwhile with his life (completing a redemption arc for his character) and can now be content in finally joining his son and be at peace. He has at that point, in essence, let go – so it wouldn’t make sense for him to go on to consciously make an effort to hold his breath and survive – as he would have had to have done. His friends certainly weren’t looking for him after he fell off the bridge, they were too busy flying the hell out of there on a chopper.

      Either way, director Sam Hargreave and writer Joe Russo have confirmed that the ending was made deliberately ambiguous to let viewers reach their own conclusion, though in interviews they do appear to be leaning toward ‘the kid honouring the memory of Rake’s sacrifice with a vision’ angle. However if he did survive the door could be left open for his character to return in a sequel should one be made. Indeed the film performed exceptionally well on Netflix (the platform's biggest ever premiere for a film at the time of its release) and Russo has since confirmed a deal has been reached for him to write a sequel, though it is not clear at present what form the story will take.

      So yeah, after all that it could go either way. But that’s movies for you.

21st May 2020